While listening to Republicans waxing eloquent about Second Amendment gun rights on the house floor yesterday, I was reminded of Archie Bunker’s anti gun control editorial on a TV episode of ‘All In The Family’ more than forty years ago. In his editorial, in addition to guns for everybody, he gave an example of how guns for everybody would stop airplane skyjackings. His solution - just arm everyone. As the passengers board, you just give everyone a pistol and collect them at the end of the trip. At the time Meathead, his son-in-law, glanced at Archie with disdain indicating his idea was insane. We, the audience, all thought it was hilariously insane.

It is not so humorous today, Republicans have taken Archie’s solution to gun violence as their plan to solve the ongoing gun violence problem that includes mass shootings of school children. The Republican’s gun violence and mass shootings’ solution is more guns. Their solution today is just as insane as Archie’s solution decades ago, only it’s not funny.

Do you have a sign in the front yard of your home that states "Proud to be a gun free home?" No? Then I submit that you're afraid of the "Law Breakers" that have guns. So am I. That's why "Law Abiding" people need guns. By the time the police have time to respond to an active shooter call the carnage will be over. The problem is not with the tool but with the person wielding it. Society has to solve that problem first otherwise, even in the unlikely event you somehow manage to remove "All" the guns, the unbalanced will simply turn to machetes or bats or some other form of tool to cause mayhem and bloodshed and become infamous. The moral fiber of society has been warped beyond all recognition. The new morality is "I do what I want" and "Do unto others before they can do unto you". There is little, if any, discipline or responsibility anymore. Find a fix for that and you will have no need of gun control.

And exactly what is it you propose Terry?Talking and bitiching is one thing,fielding a workable solution is another thing.I do not have the answer either but have spent a lot of time and thought on the mentioned problem.What is to be done?Ban firearms from radical immigrants that have a distaste for USA and you are asking for trouble.Everyone you see is on some sort of pill for something.Do all of these people need to be on these pills.Can a parent discipline a child without retaliation from LE or society?What happens when these totally undisciplined children grow up?Should we have mandatory military service and mandatory ownership of military firearms?Silly idea,right?Canadians have strict gun control.Firearms are readily available one way or another in Canada.Canadians go back and forth on the way they kill each other.Firearms and . knives change favor for the lead.I personally have carried firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition in Canada on a pretty regular basis.I have CC`d in District Court while accompanied by a Fed and without.I have firsthand experience in a few areas.Drugs are a problem both legal and illegal.When marijuana is legalized crime increases.The marijuana business draws undesirables that seem to hover in the area.Bid.en says there is no reason for anybody to have 50 or 100 rounds of ammo.The idiot should just shut up.Ok,you hunt here.Deer,elk,skunks,coyotes,pheasant,other game birds,geese ect.How many firearms and how much ammo does that take if you are active or just live on a farm.Hey Neighbor George,Murdochs had 22lr on sale,I bought 2 bricks,should have bought more at that price,it could get hard to get(or impossible)again.I get back to town I am going to buy 2or3 more bricks just in case.There you have it,5 bricks 22lr.2500 rounds.Biden should personally arrest you.It seems the same people that want to legalize many or all drugs are the ones that want to outlaw personal possession of firearms.Just read the news and you can see how well that is working out.Too bad the media no longer reports the news.To them it is just a story they can slant or misreport to further their agenda.This is a multi-faceted problem.Well Terry,I ask that you post a solution of your own making.You can talk all you want and make fun of problems all you want but until you become productive on the matter and produce possible or feasable solutions you are nothing more than part of the Hanson.

One of the real issues I see is that the "good guy with a gun" may not be able/qualified to use it. It's not as easy as it sounds/looks in the movies or on TV. (I know--I didn't do as well as hoped when I went through training. That, however, is what the training is to teach.) Perhaps a bit of an illustration (note that humor is often a good way to get a point across):



I don't claim to have all the answers, but it doesn't hurt to ask about/discuss the "answers" that don't really seem to be viable in all aspects.

Even the mention of gun control debate in the House certainly brings out the fanaticism of some gun owners. I don’t entertain any silly notion that I need a semi automatic rifle capable of rapidly firing hundreds of rounds, in a matter of minutes, to be secure in my home. In this connection, for any of you who actually care about where this society is heading, last Friday the House tried to start us on a reasonable path to a safer country and safer schools. It voted to ban the sale or possession of expanded magazine assault style rifles.

I realize most of the public incorrectly believes that AR is an acronym for assault rifles. However, the public perception of AR meaning ‘assault rifle’ says it all. Assault style rifles with expanded magazines are not meant to be defensive weapons. Their purpose is to commit assaults such as in the mass killing of humans, be it church congregations, theatre audiences or school children.

If you look back at the Clinton Presidency you'll find that there was an "Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazine Ban" passed that didn't reduce crime or death rates at all, so why do we have to go down this road again? The bottom line is you are defying the Constitution as well as trying to take away my choice of how to defend myself. You don't have that right!

AR or A R maybe? Stands for Armalite Rifle. Gene Stoner was working for or with Armalite and came up with the AR sometime in the 1950s.It was developed in 308 Winchester and is the AR10.I believe it was designed to replace the M14 and with the civilian market in mind.The AR was later adapted to the 5.56 round and dubbed the AR15.Most AR15s today are chambered in .223/5.56 but the rifle and platform is very adaptable and lends itself to many calibers.The AR rifle is nearly,or actually may be 70 years old.There are still quite a few AR-15s that are floating around that were manufactured by Colt and sold to the civilian market in the early 1960s.I have never personally seen a left hand Colt SP1(early model) but I have seen pictures of a left hand model built in the late 60s or early 70s most likely developed and built by Colt.

TiredofBS wrote:

If you look back at the Clinton Presidency you'll find that there was an "Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazine Ban" passed that didn't reduce crime or death rates at all, so why do we have to go down this road again? The bottom line is you are defying the Constitution as well as trying to take away my choice of how to defend myself. You don't have that right!

The data appears to say otherwise. We didn't try this for a long enough period to really establish a trend.

"It appears that the assault weapons ban
had clear short-term effects on the gun
market, some of which were unintended
consequences: production of the
banned weapons increased before the
law took effect and prices fell afterward. These effects suggest that the
weapons became more available generally, but they must have become less
accessible to criminals because there
was at least a short-term decrease in
criminal use of the banned weapons."

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

I didn’t need to look up any statistical history to know that after the 1994 ban expired there has been a proliferation of assault style, expanded magazine, rifles purchased in the United States. Further, along with the proliferation of such weapons there has been a steep increase in deaths from their use in mass killings. In the 1990s there was only one horrific incident attributable to assault style, expanded magazine, rifles that is comparable to the mass murders this year. In 1999 the Columbine High School mass murder resulted in about 10 or so murdered and about twice that number injured.

Comparing the 1994 ban to today is like comparing apples to oranges. First of all the 1994 ban was limited – it covered only certain assault style rifles with expanded magazines and its application was only to purchases after the ban became effective, allowing people to keep weapons purchased before that date.

I did look up one statistic. Since 2004 the yearly number of deaths attributed to the use of assault style, expanded magazine, rifles is five (5) times higher than during the limited ban. Of the more than 300 victims murdered in mass shootings this year the deadliest, using such assault style weapons, was the massacre in Uvaldie, Texas, in which 19 children and two teachers were murdered on May 24. A week or so before Uvalde 10 people were shot and killed in a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

Gun fondlers can't be reasoned with.

I have to go a partial with Hanson on this one.And nooooo I do not mean teeth.Hasnson is right,and I did not bother with looking at whatever govt. study was linked either.Don`t need to I was here.That study is just a total waste of taxpayer dollars.I am sure hours before his downfall Madoff had accountants that could give you a graph that said he was not only solvent but also the greatest financial humanitarian that ever lived.Anyone in business knows you can make a graph that either goes up or it goes down,just whatever you need that day.I just did a study using absolutely no taxpayer dollars.I could print a graph if I had to.The use of 1950 mercury convertibles used in armed bank robberies has declined sharply since the 50s and 60s in the USA.*disclaimer* This study may not be accurate in other countries.I am soon going to do a very similar study on 1959 Cadillac convertibles but that will just be the tail end of the 50s in to the 60s.I do not intend on including the data from this century.That information could affect my study immensely as does the color on my proposed study.I wonder if there is govt.money available for my research.Then on to my next project. How Funny Hats Affect Betting at Churchill Downs.Expect a Multi Facet Graph on that one as the importance and demand will definitely require that amount of attention to detail.

Felix wrote:

I have to go a partial with Hanson on this one.And nooooo I do not mean teeth.Hasnson is right,and I did not bother with looking at whatever govt. study was linked either.Don`t need to I was here.That study is just a total waste of taxpayer dollars.I am sure hours before his downfall Madoff had accountants that could give you a graph that said he was not only solvent but also the greatest financial humanitarian that ever lived.Anyone in business knows you can make a graph that either goes up or it goes down,just whatever you need that day.I just did a study using absolutely no taxpayer dollars.I could print a graph if I had to.The use of 1950 mercury convertibles used in armed bank robberies has declined sharply since the 50s and 60s in the USA.*disclaimer* This study may not be accurate in other countries.I am soon going to do a very similar study on 1959 Cadillac convertibles but that will just be the tail end of the 50s in to the 60s.I do not intend on including the data from this century.That information could affect my study immensely as does the color on my proposed study.I wonder if there is govt.money available for my research.Then on to my next project. How Funny Hats Affect Betting at Churchill Downs.Expect a Multi Facet Graph on that one as the importance and demand will definitely require that amount of attention to detail.

Well... now you have to... Put up or shut up.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about Richard?

I know exactly what I am talking about. Not sure if I have enough red crayons or patience to explain it to you, but here goes:

I was growing tired of TiredofBS's BS and called him on what appears to be factual inaccuracy. In school, the nuns always made me show my work, and so I provided a link to the material I referenced.

Because you brush your teeth with gun powder, you have this tendency to always shoot your mouth off. You didn't read the material I provided, but somehow "know" it was a waste of taxpayer money. How you can make an informed decision without reading any information is mysterious. You then went on to state:

I just did a study using absolutely no taxpayer dollars.I could print a graph if I had to.The use of 1950 mercury convertibles used in armed bank robberies has declined sharply since the 50s and 60s in the USA.

In my last post, I was, and still am calling you out. I want to see your graph demonstrating that the use of 1950 mercury convertibles used in armed bank robberies has declined sharply. Put your money where your mouth is and show your work. Once you do this, I will make my next comment which illustrates how supply impacts use. Your move, pilgrim.

Well now Richard if you were China you would be able to tell me what to do.If you were China Pelosi would have never been in Taiwan recently.But gladly you are just some other kind of person who tries to be a bully online behind a keyboard.I am not a Pilgrim.I was born here and am a Native American.Brush my teeth with gunpowder,that is just ridiculous.I do own a firearm though.I sometimes carry it concealed and it is a very good carry gun.It is very good for home defense and even for women for carry and home defense.If I am at home it is with me.Do you have a problem with that Richard?I assume you had a Catholic upbringing from your mention of nuns.As far as the graph goes I said If I had to and I said I could or something on that order.Never said I would print a graph for you.I read what you had linked long before you probably did and just did not need to read the drivel again that reminds me how my tax payer dollars are spent.Nothing against being a govt. employee by the way and don`t waste my time asking me to explain that one either..Can you make your "next comment" on how supply impacts use on yourself,the proliferation of computers,maybe slenderman,school violence?It seems to me from what I have seen,and I did not mean to provoke your anger,but it seems to me that you are the type that sits behind a keyboard and then may go out and act on your anger with violence.I am not a professional in that area but it is possible one should be contacted.You may have crossed the line to where someone needs to be notified.You are angry,confrontational,pretty much incoherent,using red,and it seems trying to intimidate.I will not be intimidated Richard.Calling me out? This is where some of the laws come in to take firearms away from people.Not sure if they ar in Montana yet.My move is I think this is an internet threat from you Richard Bodine.This has been documented.This was a peacful constructive conversation before you became involved.

Felix may not brush his teeth with gunpowder, but he fondles the PROCREATE out of that gun he's concealing.

What is it with these rightwing nutters? Are they drunk or just naturally incoherent. Whatever they are, they have never convinced any of us articulate liberals to change our minds. But they are hilarious!

Bridgier.I carry and protect you and others every day.Yes I have extensive training.Past extensive training.Most likely more firearms training than anybody you will ever personally know.Do you have a problem with that Bridgier?Do you have a problem with my carrying a handgun that is also suitable for a woman to carry and defend herself?I have a female friend.We only got in one argument.I told her I did not believe that women should own guns.Calm,collected,educated,an athelete at the time and still may be,even tempered was at the controlled boiling point of the human animal furious as a tornado but totally collected, asked me "why?" I said because they could hold men responsible for all of the poop they do to women.It works both ways.I would wager that she is still bent over my words to this day.Just who would say such a thing,even in jest and it does not matter if they have an explanation.I pissed her off to put it lightly.Research the Wyoming laws on firearms and women`s suffrage.Maybe the answer is to take away the woman`s right to own firearms and her right to vote.Research that one Amorette.By the way I am sorry LW.It should not have been said.Or should have it been?Either way I am still sorry lol.Amorette,before we go any further are you presently or ever have been on medication for mental illness?If so are you currently on medication for mental illness.Yes or Not ever.I believe you have posted here on your medications for mental illness.I did not bring this up Amorette.You did. (previous Amorette post}Yes or No.Simple question.You dis me here and it seems use my word or words,so I ask the question again.Are you on prescribed medication for mental illness Amorette Allison.Yes or No.I believe you will either lie or you will not answer.Small chance that you will admit to what is already known and stated by you here.Maybe I can get your friend who writes with the red crayon to tell you that you have to answer this question.I mean his crayon works pretty good.It might be they will not give him anything sharp and pointed.

Do I have a problem with you carrying a concealed weapon? Absolutely. You seem to lack the self control and calm demeanor that I'd prefer to see in someone carrying a lethal weapon.

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/

[Edited by bh (8/5/2022 7:15:18 AM)]

Felix,

You are nuts. You are scary insane and the fact that you are carrying a concealed weapon is the absolute proof that these laws need to be changed. Please, please, please realize that you are an imbecile and destroy all of your deadly weapons. Your fear of women needs to be amplified to the degree that all women near you are made aware of the danger they are in.

Another example of how the politics of Trump have brought the roaches out of hiding and given you a voice. Maybe in the long run this will be a good thing. It is proof of how far we really were from being an equality based civilization. Sadly the country as we know it will likely be ending soon. Maybe from the ashes something better can rise. Something that doesn't put all of it's hopes in an invisible white bearded man who lets unspeakable things happen to "his children" because they couldn't understand the reason.

<sigh>
FH

When marijuana is legalized crime increases.The marijuana business draws undesirables that seem to hover in the area.

Hell to the Nah. Statistically, crime has decreased in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. I suspect that the above quote is more your opinion. It sounds like an opinion. Don't make me get sarcastic on your ass. I am capable, as others will attest.

I don't but should I desire, I can take a trip to Acapulco any time I want and never leave Oregon. Felix, I am sure that you could benefit from a little medical herb. BTW, What is wrong with you?

Holy crap on a cracker.

Relax Felix, I'm not a threat. I'm a lovable fuzzball trying to win in the arena of ideas. I have a take-it or or leave-it odd sense of humor. I am sad that you didn't like or understand my use of red-lettering to simulate red crayons. I wasted time looking up the ASCII code I guess.

Obviously, as availability of Mercury convertibles decreased, there use in armed robbery followed that trend, no matter how loud Alan Jackson wants to sing about them. Same is true for Corvairs. The same could be true of assault weapons if we could find the huevos to ban them. Mass shootings would likely decrease. Abstinence works every time its tried. Every other country in the world that has abstained from assaults weapons or taken them out of circulation has experienced a decrease in mass shootings. The data is very clear on this point.

And anticipating the oncoming comments about the founding fathers, let's stop and think about their world for a minute. The guns they had are were the equivalent of shoving some gun powder in a metal tube and dropping a large steel marble on the load, and setting it off like a fire cracker. They had no repeating rifle, that was 85 years down the road. The founding fathers medicine was the four humours; blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. They would have considered electricity and the lightbulb pure witchcraft. They had no understanding of how modern weaponry would develop. So the notion that the second amendment gives you some right needs to be placed in a reasonable historical context.

Part of the reason for the second amendment was so the insurrection by slaves could be put down quickly without the need to contact the governor, who was the commander of the state militia.

The genius of the founding fathers was they provided a framework that was meant to be changed as time and technology changed. Jefferson and Madison would absolutely kick Clarence Thomas's ass for his originalist view of the constitution. IMHO, We need to find the courage to change the constitution to match the times.

I am all for responsible gun ownership. I don't understand those that feel the need to stockpile ammo. In 1983, I bought a Ruger 22 and a box of bullets at Kmart. I still have half of the box. I used to own a 22-250 to hunt deer. I used three shells to sight it in and two to kill two deer. If it takes you more than two shots to kill a deer or elk, you should probably become a vegetarian. Investing in cases of ammo like you are going to fight world war three is just weird behavior. If you feel the need to shoot something, go buy a camera.

All that said, I don't believe anyone, other than the military, needs to own an assault weapon. I know others will disagree. Perhaps a compromise would be that your assault weapon should be stored at the local armory and when you wish to use it, you can go check it out, just like our founding fathers did. This kind of accountability might go a long ways to save the lives of people being shot up in school or a mall.

On another note, Amorette dear, I fear you are being a little harsh with your characterization of people as being "drunken". Clearly, Stormtrooper Felix here, has never been near a "spacebar".

See you in the funny papers...

[Edited by Richard Bonine (8/5/2022 2:10:35 PM)]

I guess drunk is just a euphemism for dumb.
Haven't we had this same idiot conversation with this same idiot about 25 times in the last 25 years? Gun nuts -- and all conservatives for that matter -- need some new material.

Perhaps one of you "articulate liberals" would care to define an "assault weapon" for me. I know I'm simply a "drunken gun fondler" but I can make a number of items perform as an "assault weapon".

This is just my personal definition of what I would like regulated but that is:

Automatic or semi-automatic weapon with a magazine capacity exceeding 5 rounds (this number is definitely susceptible to editing to a lower number upon persuasion).

That's it. Slow down the death. Allow time to react, run, fight, hide, etc.

<double sigh>
<Goodbye Olivia>
FH

My definition would be would be automatic or semi-automatic rifles capable of a muzzle velocity exceeding 1,200 feet per second, delivering kinetic energy of more 500 foot pounds and with a magazine capacity exceeding 4 rounds. This definition would not interfere with ownership of most semi-automatic hand guns with their 9 to 16 round magazines nor big game rifles as most have 4 round magazines.

Yup! That's pretty articulate.

Big game rifles such as an AR-15? There was a shooter in a clock tower way back when who used a bolt action rifle to kill and injure numerous people. The deranged will find a way.

[Edited by TiredofBS (8/9/2022 2:52:49 AM)]

[Edited by TiredofBS (8/9/2022 3:12:28 AM)]

But they'll have to find a DIFFERENT, LESS EFFICIENT way.

TiredofBS wrote:

Big game rifles such as an AR-15? There was a shooter in a clock tower way back when who used a bolt action rifle to kill and injure numerous people. The deranged will find a way.

Yes, they might find a way. But why do Republicans insist on making it as easy as possible for the "deranged" to commit mass murder? It's almost like they don't care. Not really a pro-life attitude. A few common sense gun laws might help reduce the number of mass shootings.

Republicans support mass murder. I'm not sure why but they love it and want to make it easy as possible.

source FBI

https://infogram.com/1pe6w316qd96l3amjexxz7emr2blwygld6d

Source: National Institute of Justice
https://infogram.com/1p32xew7vz72nqh0qjkmeq3590hd12m7mg2

You can see the full context of the graphics links above in an article on theepochtimes.com

Rifles are not the problem

Get real. Your graph is a sham. The 1994 ban was a limited ban and, in fact, mass killings are far greater in numbers now than during the limited ban. Further, your graph came from Epoch Time, a far-right newspaper and media company affiliated with some wing-nut religious movements. The newspaper, based in New York City, is and was a big Trump supporter and promoter of far-right politicians in Europe (fascists) and Donald Trump in the U.S. The Epoch Media Group's news sites spread conspiracy theories such as Qanon, anti-vaccine misinformation and Trump’s big lie of election fraud here.

My issue with your link is that if you cannot follow the simple instructions within the posting process on how to post the link, then you need to realize you are not an intuitive or intelligent person and you must immediately cease all political actions including:

1. Voting
2. Campaigning
3. Posting Misinformation*
4. Quoting Misinformation*
5. Discussing anything political
6. Wearing your red cap
7. Owning any weaponry beyond a kitchen knife.

*misinformation shall be interpreted as ANY thing that you believe to be true.

Please continuously refer to only the following URL:

https://www.yourdictionary.com/bonehead


FH

Source: National Institute of Justice
https://infogram.com/1p32...0hd12m7mg2

See, the thing is FBE, the "data" you presented doesn't support your assertion that the ban didn't work.

From the data YOU presented:

The pre-ban average 1991-1993 is 5 incidence per year.

The average during the ban is 3.2 incidence per year, or a 36% reduction.

The average after the ban is 4 incidence per year, or a 20% increase over the average during the ban.

The average for the last 14 year, 2008-2022 is 6.2. The average 2017-2022, is 8, (likely higher if everyone wasn't locked down with the pandemic) which demonstrates an increasing trend of significant concern.

https://www.statista.com/...in-the-us/

If the lowest number of incidence per year is some measure of success, then rational people must conclude the ban was successful.

You can see the full context of the graphics links above in an article on theepochtimes.com

The Epoch Times, procreate oh dear. That poop will eat your brains dude.

Bridgier wrote:

You can see the full context of the graphics links above in an article on theepochtimes.com

The Epoch Times, procreate oh dear. That poop will eat your brains dude.

Really? Jerry Erlenbusch told me I was an idiot because I did not read these "epoch" tomes of moronic thought.